Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Prevent update_catalog from stomping over comments in existing po files #418

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Mabusto
Copy link

@Mabusto Mabusto commented Jun 16, 2016

pybabel update will ignore existing comments in a po file. This issue is outlined in greater detail here (https://babel.edgewall.org/ticket/170) and this is the suggested fix. Auto comments are not copied over here as they will work when extractor runs, but user comments are stored in the .po file, therefore will be overwritten unless they are merged in.

  update_catalog from stomping over existing user comments in .po files.
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Jun 16, 2016

Current coverage is 90.15%

Merging #418 into master will increase coverage by <.01%

@@             master       #418   diff @@
==========================================
  Files            24         24          
  Lines          3951       3952     +1   
  Methods           0          0          
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches          0          0          
==========================================
+ Hits           3562       3563     +1   
  Misses          389        389          
  Partials          0          0          

Powered by Codecov. Last updated by 5fe694b...a75bcee

@akx
Copy link
Member

akx commented Jul 8, 2016

Thanks for the patch, @Mabusto! Can you add a test that verifies the behavior?

@jsuter
Copy link

jsuter commented Dec 9, 2016

Can we get this merged in? We're running into the same issue. I'd commit a test if I could, but I have no idea how.

@akx akx self-assigned this Dec 9, 2016
@Mabusto
Copy link
Author

Mabusto commented May 3, 2017

Hi there,

This is a relatively simple change. I see that it is marked for review. Is there anything I can do to help move this along and get it merged in?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants